OK, but how many people who preach consent with regards to sexuality think or act the same way with regards to citizenship, the consent to be governed? The same people who jump on my case about this also complain when I remind them that consent to be governed can be withdrawn as well.
In some ways I think it demonstrates different kinds of consent, so I model them as being social versus personal. Many seem to see this only one-way, as if to ask “Should I be expected to have a personal connection to somebody I choose not to?”, but hardly anybody considers the converse which this can imply: “What are my ethical obligations if for me sex is not an interpersonal activity?” That seems like a relevant question to ask.
But that’s not the same ethos people are operating under here. For example, there was a lot of controversy about this in a discussion recently about sexual harassment. How in a practical sense, harassment can be construed as bothering somebody after they have told you to stop, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Versus how many such rules and laws also stipulate than soliciting a person for sex is only valid if it turns out they were interested, and harassment if they were not. That is a model which strikes me as completely impractical. And I think it reenforces a culture’s expectation and requirement that sexuality be a product of interpersonal relationships. I agree that anybody who has a problem with accepting “no” as an answer is acting from an unreasonable feeling of entitlement, but not that one needs to feel entitled to ask in the first place. Any more than asking a person for the time or directions suggests entitlement.
So by that analogy, it’s like your potluck is even a threat to some people by virtue of having invited them to it. That telling them about your potluck offends their sense of propriety somehow.
